Don’t Play Politics With Unemployment Benefits

By the Editors -
Jan 6, 2014

President Barack Obama and Republican
legislators are signaling that they might after all make a deal
to extend federal support for the long-term unemployed. An
extension makes such good sense that there shouldn’t be much to
discuss, but never mind. If a deal is done, it would be petty to
complain about the delay.

The case is straightforward. The recovery has so far been
too weak to provide work for a lot of willing and qualified
people. No doubt, to some small degree, removing benefits might
lower the unemployment rate by forcing some to take jobs they
otherwise wouldn’t consider, but the main problem remains one of
demand: There aren’t enough jobs, and the long-term unemployed
have a much harder time getting a foot in the door. The case for
relieving the resulting hardship is, or ought to be,
irresistible.

Of late, Congress has actually made the unemployment
problem worse. Economists, including Federal Reserve Chairman
Ben S. Bernanke, agree that with interest rates extremely low,
short-term fiscal stimulus would be the best way to get people
back to work before unemployment erodes their skills and does
permanent damage to the economy. Instead, legislators have
focused on short-term spending cuts that do nothing to address
the U.S. government’s long-term fiscal challenge.

Even with fiscal policy set on the wrong course, the
government could have done more to help the long-term unemployed
-- for example, by simplifying and coordinating dozens of
existing retraining programs.

The result: Some 4.1 million Americans have been out of
work for more than 6 months -- a level not seen in any other
recession on record. Of these, some 1.3 million will lose their
modest emergency benefits unless Congress and the White House
reach agreement.

Republicans say they’d be willing to extend the benefits
for three months if Democrats find spending cuts to offset the
cost. They’re wrong to impose that condition -- not least
because extending the benefits will in large part pay for itself
by boosting jobs and output. The Congressional Budget Office has
estimated that a one-year extension would add about 200,000 jobs
at a cost of about $25 billion in fiscal 2014 and 2015.

Both sides, in fact, should separate this issue from their
ongoing political war. Extending unemployment benefits merely
recognizes the terrible burden that the recession has placed on
blameless victims. It has nothing to do with enlarging or
shrinking the role of the state; nothing to do with accepting or
resisting income inequality. It has about as much to do with
ideology as deciding whether to help a heart-attack victim in
the street.